When Bill Clinton was in the White House, I found much of what he did dubious, though his successor has made all 42 of his predecessors look better in comparison.
Whatever crime or folly (and the latter is worse than the former for believers in realpolitik) Bush & Co. commit, there are some who manage to blame it on Clinton. This has provided some cynical pleasure over the years of W's misrule, but, in celebrating Tony Blair's stepping down (one criminal down, a handful more to go), Paul Craig Robins shot an arrow at the Clinton legacy that should stick:
'People damn Bill Clinton for many reasons. Perhaps his greatest failure was in permitting the media concentration that destroyed the independence of the "mainstream media." The American media is no longer in the hands of journalists. It is controlled by advertising executives and corporate bosses who will never put their empires at risk by offending government and advertisers. They believe readers and viewers want to be entertained, not challenged by truthful news. Journalism schools now teach students how to spin the news away from uncomfortable truths. Reporters and editorial writers are being turned into shills for those in power'
(The "liberal media" would be amusing like belief in a flat earth were it not a bogeyman so effective that it terrifies news organizations. Time-Warner and other corporate conglomerates are NOT "liberal"!)
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
It has become almost impossible to tell Fox News from Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report;" sad commentary on the network. The rest of the media is sure to follow. I don't quite know what to do, but stop tuning in and start researching every dang thing on my own!
With the shift to authoritarian "values", comes the natural pressure throughout the media and other institutions of society to "tow the line" in many ways. The non-authoritarians would do well to reject the deceptive terminology preferred by these folks, and speak quite clearly of the loss of things like 'independence', 'originality', and skepticism of 'official' explanations, rather than play along with those capitalizing on nuanced terms like 'liberal'. True conservatives are themselves shaking off this charade, even if slowly, and there is a natural compatibility between our historic political blocks. Neither is fond of authoritarian rule.
Truth ought not be sold to the highest bidder. It's not about who makes more money informing the public, it's about whether that information is free of spin and threat.
I suppose to some the constant implication that one is treasonous is merely a handy way to win debates by default, but within the real world of paychecks and future employment, the adoption of such language is a threat.
The Path to 9/11 as presented by abc was full of lies and baseless accusations. It wrongly represented history even though a survey conducted after the show revealed that those who watched the show were led to believe that the events portrayed were, in fact, events that occurred. That kind of propaganda should be illegal and absolutely had no liberal bias.
I have not been witness to a "constant implication that one is treasonous" except in the frequent words of conservatives who decry lack of support for a war equivalent to lack of support for the warrior.
Throwing around terms like 'treasonous' is hardly "conservative". It is radical. While I agree that the vast majority of such talk comes from one sides operatives and pundits, and happen to be more liberal than conservative in general, I feel it is time to quit accepting those very same divisive authoritarians choice of terms. Double-speak is a highly effective technique, and has blurred the public discussion almost beyond recognition. This ain't about conservative vs liberal, its about top down vs bottom up government.
Mitch R. I have an open mind and read plenty of left wing propaganda.
Sorry, I sometimes forget who I'm speaking to . . .
People in the news media find being labeled traitors threatening.
I think a more true statement is that the media has been capitalized and protects its own. If you're a small business, the local media will tear you apart should you commit a crime, they will take you down. If you are a large corporation, many crimes go ignored or just get a mention on the back page by main stream media. Brad in your corner who helps people out who have difficulty and need press attention to help fix things, wouldn't even speak to me when sears messed up my Volvo and wouldn't make it right. That's when I began to notice. They always take on small businesses and local communities but never big businesses and the feds.
You know, if you hear a mosquito, don't worry, it won't bite you, he's just trying to attract a mate. The one you don't hear bites you. That's main stream media. You only get the news they want you to have. They'll give you a little bit and sensationalize it. The murderer, the rapist, as if they're only one or two in this country. So the news you hear, you don't have to worry to much about that, it's the news you don't hear that you have to worry about. To find the truth you have to dig or really listen. Example, do a Google search on the Franklin cover-up.
I hear they just mixed up a FRESH POT OF KOOLAID at Faux News
Better run and go get your "fix" before they run out, especially since Jerry F. isn't around anymore to feed you your daily dose of bigotry!
Your article is hitting at the real problem, which has little or nothing to do with stuff like religion, or even politics. There is an underlying question which these "hot button" pushers are intent on keeping out of the public awareness and discussion;
Ought the knack, or good luck, of acquiring great wealth, translate into the power to dominate the public discourse, and hence the general direction of public policy? Clinton bashing, Bush bashing, religion bashing, etc., etc., are distractions. Intentionally thrown up for their divisive effects. Obviously, the vast bulk of humanity is not hyper wealthy, and if honest dialog was simply "allowed" to develop, the tiny minority of people who hold the great majority of riches would come under intense scrutiny.
People who win the ferocious competition for real wealth and the power it brings, are just like everyone else in one regard; They tend to protect what they base their security and sense of accomplishment on. They tend to serve themselves. And some of them are very self centered people. They really believe they have a "natural right" to turn their control over great riches into control over society.
Since Fox is so "balanced" in favor of the neocons, then I suggest we should have a "balanced" station in fovor of the rest of the country.
Anyway I coined the term, and I'm going to be liberal about complainiticking, yeap, its the only liberal thing about me, I'm going to complain about Politics.
And i'm going to do it as liberal as the liberals have complained about bush!!!!
Hmmmmm lemme dig up the dirt to blame things on Clinton!
I like this idea.
Mooch